... VS State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

M. NAGAPRASANNA
... – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Gireesha R. J, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. B. N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP.

ORDER (ORAL)

The petitioner-mother of the victim girl is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.11.2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Benglauru Rural District, whereby, an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’ for short), seeking custody of her daughter in Crime No. 395/2025, comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri Gireesha R.J., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is said to be the mother of the victim child, who was rescued from a lodge, which was running a prostitution racket. The State then keeps the victim girl in the Child Welfare Home. The petitioner-mother of the victim files an application before the concerned Court under Section 17(2) of the Act, seeking custody of her daughter on the score that her daughter has now attained 18 years of age. Once the minor girl attains the age of 18, the daughter cannot be kept in the Child Welfare Home and she the daughter has to be handed over to the parents, one of whom is the petit